Last week I got involved in what I would have hoped to be a dialogue with Randal Rauser regarding a handful of tweets he’d put up on Twitter. It turned out to be pseudo-dialogue, with him refusing or abstaining from answering my questions, yet insisting that I answer his, after he tried changing the subject on me.
I know some folks on Facebook were aware of this going on, after I posted this blog post on it, but not all of them would have followed it on Twitter. I’m putting this here to tie a bow on it for them and for myself. I thought it would be interesting to count how many times he demanded I drop what I was there to talk about, and answer his questions on his preferred, perhaps more comfortable topic. It was also interesting to see how few of my questions he answered.
I close with some thoughts on integrity in discourse.
It wasn’t a clean question-answer Twitter thread, so at points the sequence was hard to reconstruct. I dropped a few tweets where he said, rightly, that links had come through, and where I followed up by providing them again. They’re not germane now, though I did leave a couple in anyway. What follows is my best reconstruction of the sequence, with all the relevant tweets I was able to identify.
Some Preliminary Tweets of Concern
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) January 11, 2023
I’ll let you click on his pic link so you know what I’m referring to in this answer:
Better not to indulge in false dichotomies.
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 23, 2023
My go-to symbol for a Christian who is equipped to defend their faith is not a megaphone. Rather, it is the two coffee cups of my imprint "Two Cup Press." Rigorous, charitable, mutually enriching conversation, not an amplified harangue on the street corner. https://t.co/YKxOgTQoQc
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 19, 2023
Is that how you'd characterize your approach to Sean McDowell? https://t.co/cKu6sMH5JD
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 23, 2023
There’s the first question I asked him that he never answered.
@RandalRauser, as you know, I've been studying some of your responses to @SeanMcDowell and Alisa Childers. It appears your most basic critique is that they believe their view of Christianity is true, to the exclusion of other views. Would you call that a fair short summary?
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 23, 2023
There’s the second question I asked him that he never answered.
My latest video provides a focused, succinct (12 minute) rebuttal to Alisa Childers' false teaching on progressive Christians. Please help me counter the misinformation spread by Childers and her ilk. https://t.co/A8PXoDjOvx
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 19, 2023
I can't find a single instance of word "relativism" or "relativistic" in her book that sounds the least bit like what you attribute to her. Could you provide real evidence, please?
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 23, 2023
There’s the third question I asked him that he never answered.
The “Stereotyping” Pseudo-Dialogue Begins
The word "atheist" still functions in much conservative evangelical parlance as roughly equivalent to "evil, amoral, licentious anti-social iconoclastic hater of God, mother, apple pie, and all that is right and good."
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 23, 2023
I guess you’re opposed to stereotyping. That’s why you’ve decided to stereotype evangelicals this way, maybe.
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 23, 2023
How is it "stereotyping" to point out a common problem? Please explain.
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 24, 2023
Let’s take this in order, please. I’ll explain (if you really need it!) after you answer the question I posed you earlier about your basic disagreement with McDowell and Childers.
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 24, 2023
I don't know what you're referring to. Please restate it here. As for my tweet, I wrote a book defending that claim and there's abundant survey data supporting it. For example:https://t.co/bEWE7J8Se5
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 24, 2023
You could answer this as well while you're at it: https://t.co/LpFjnV3m5J
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 24, 2023
Who’s Deflecting?
Sean McDowell has declined to have any interaction. I had excellent conversations with Douglas Groothuis and George Yancey. I just provided supporting evidence for my atheist tweet. It seems like you're deflecting. Please respond to the evidence I provided.
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 24, 2023
It is not deflecting when one says, “I will answer your question in order. I asked you more than one question that you haven’t even acknowledged. It’s your turn to answer first”
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 24, 2023
In the time you took to write that tweet you could've offered a defense of your original critique of my tweet about evangelical attitudes toward atheists.
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 24, 2023
That’s rude. Stop it. https://t.co/Ov2qHhYnBi
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 24, 2023
I will reply to your question regarding stereotyping when I said I would reply.
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 24, 2023
Also this. Please answer, in context of your tweet that is linked here and the question I asked about it. And please do not be so rude as to push me again to answer your question. I have already told you I will answer when you have first answered me. https://t.co/a2U3PkFXrn
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 24, 2023
There’s a tweet missing here; I can’t track it down.
Once again, I don't know what you're referring to. Please link me to the "egregious errors" and I'll happily provide a fulsome response on my YouTube channel. In the interim, please defend your response to my atheist tweet.
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 24, 2023
3 times now I have pasted the link in question into a tweet. I’m having trouble tracking them all down from my mobile, but I know at least it failed to transmit for reasons I do not know. Try this instead: Go to https://t.co/s8WKRW2YiA It’s the most recent blog entry there
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 24, 2023
Also @RandalRauser , it appears not all of my messages to you with this link yesterday disappeared. You missed this one from more than 24 hours ago. https://t.co/3xV0esttr3
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 24, 2023
@RandalRauser , this is another tweet I wrote yesterday, another question I asked before you asked me yours. I'd like to know your answer, please. https://t.co/RsUUFILpZV
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 24, 2023
He Promises to Respond, and I Respond
Got it. I'll either do a video or a blog article in response.
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 24, 2023
With that as at least a mild acknowledgment, even though it answered only one of the three questions above, I decided to go ahead and start answering his question about how he was stereotyping. I begin by asking him for some specific clarification.
Is it your position that the link you gave, https://t.co/5NkoGLMk7G supports this detailed description of "much of evangelical parlance"? Do you intend to imply that evangelical parlance is *largely* stained by this view? If not, what word would you use in place of "largely"? https://t.co/K5FtB8W4Kb
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 24, 2023
There’s the fourth question I asked him that he never answered. He gave a vague, general response, as you see below, but no answer to the very specific questions I asked.
Yes, evangelicals "largely" have an overwhelmingly negative view of atheists. I cite multiple high profile examples and additional surveys in "Is the Atheist My Neighbor?"
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 24, 2023
I ask those questions because (a) the detailed description you gave is unsupported by the evidence you gave. It's highly inflammatory, and your vague word "much" has all kinds of possible implications.
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 24, 2023
I didn't say anything about race, Tom. And I find your communication style "inflammatory." But I don't place weight on subjective impressions: rather, I cite objective survey data to support my claims.
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 24, 2023
Did you seriously think I said (or implied) you had said something about race? Good grief, Randal, it was an analogy. And did you miss my tweet moments earlier where I responded to your survey data and your claims about it?
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 24, 2023
@RandalRauser Do your surveys support your statement that evangelicals largely speak of atheists as haters of mother and apple pie? Or as iconoclats? Or anti-social? Exactly which words in that phrase of yours are *specifically* supported by your data? https://t.co/gyM3eRefX1
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 24, 2023
There’s the fifth question I asked him that he never answered.
If you had written, "Many evangelicals hold a chilly or cold attitude toward atheists," I would have agreed. That's a commonplace. But in my experience with many evangelicals I have never heard the inflammatory language you ascribe to us here. It's not true, and it's stereotyped. https://t.co/K5FtB8W4Kb
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 24, 2023
He Begins Insisting on a Change of Topic
My latest video is a response to a very offended @TomGilsonAuthor who claims my critique of Sean McDowell is "utterly reprehensible." https://t.co/KdANcAmlvO
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 25, 2023
@RandalRauser Your latest video is predominantly a critique of Alisa Childers, tangentially a critique of Sean McDowell, and just barely a response to my article at https://t.co/JwteHrMK4s. https://t.co/O91RrMhJHK
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 25, 2023
You're right: I largely ignored your article because it largely ignored the central thesis under debate, Is progressive Christianity another religion as McDowell claims, or not? Let me know when you want to discuss his thesis.
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 25, 2023
That was his central thesis, not mine; but if it actually was under debate, why didn’t he answer my questions about it above? This was his first attempt to take control of the topic. More to come.
But no, it was not the central thesis, as far as I was concerned. I entered the conversation with questions about his treatment of McDowell and Childers, and then I wrote a blog post showing how he had completely misrepresented McDowell, with a list of egregious errors in the use of evidence and reasoning. That was what I was here to talk about. In no way was Childers’ or McDowell’s treatment of progressive Christians the topic I came to discuss. But with all temerity, he tried wresting the topic over to a “central thesis” of his definition and of his preference.
@RandalRauser You focus on what you assume to be true of me ("offended" — which I did not say) and set aside the 7 specific points where I show objectively identifiable errors of evidence and logic in your treatment of Sean McDowell, saying it's "[not very much of substance]." https://t.co/O91RrMhJHK
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 25, 2023
All 7 errors I listed at https://t.co/JwteHrMK4s are serious and substantive, but #5 and #7 are especially egregious. You called my use of that word "off-putting," but you use it yourself in this video (ca 7:15). https://t.co/O91RrMhJHK
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 25, 2023
As I said, let me know when you're prepared to discuss McDowell's central claim that progressive Christianity is another religion.
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 25, 2023
That was his second attempt. The following third attempt has the same words but it is not the same tweet. It came later:
As I said, let me know when you're prepared to discuss McDowell's central claim that progressive Christianity is another religion.
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 25, 2023
Here’s number four:
One more time: let me know when you're prepared to discuss McDowell's central claim that progressive Christianity is another religion.
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 25, 2023
Pushiness
Number five, an ironic attempt to make me look like the one who’s deflecting, when he had refused to address my blog points, along with five questions in this discussion string. He’s also talking about his “central topic” again, ignoring the other topic I had introduced: his own writings and message on video:
Your ability to deflect is remarkable. The central topic of the original and follow-up videos is a response to McDowell's thesis that progressive Christianity is another religion. Think on that, please.
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 25, 2023
That's actually hilarious. Your "response" to me was a deflection from https://t.co/JwteHrMK4s. And if you think my pointing out your objectively identifiable errors in your one video obligates me to respond to your claims in other venues, you're simply wrong about that.
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 25, 2023
It’s incredible how hard he was pushing me to get on his topic, as if my bringing up Topic A, which he didn’t want to talk about, obligated me to discuss his more comfortable Topic B. And as if I was a really bad interlocutor, “deflecting,” for not dropping Topic A and following his demands to talk about what he wanted to talk about!
@RandalRauser In this video you find much fault with Childers & McDowell, but it's all elsewhere. Their words elsewhere have no bearing on the specific errors I identified at https://t.co/JwteHrMK4s. Your defense is thus a deflection, not an answer. Think on that, please. https://t.co/O91RrMhJHK
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 25, 2023
Let me know if you're ever ready to talk about the central thesis I was critiquing in the original video. Time and again, I find that evangelicals like McDowell and Childers who promote that thesis refuse to defend it when challenged. Sadly, you fit that pattern.
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 25, 2023
@RandalRauser, I'm not pressuring you to respond to me in anyway. I did say your honesty would be revealed by how you respond, but that's entirely up to you. I won't try to control what you choose to write or speak about. You can quit trying to control me now, too. Thanks.
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 25, 2023
Number six:
How about you address the actual thesis endorsed by both McDowell and Childers that progressive Christianity is another religion?
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 25, 2023
Please note, I had asked him two questions related to this (my second and third questions to him), and he had not answered.
I guess I didn’t answer him the way he wanted me to. Meanwhile, note all the questions I put to him before he declared to me what the “central thesis” of our conversation was — a central thesis that was in no way central to what I had entered the conversation to talk about.
Drawing It to an Unsatisfactory Close
I'm ready to bow out of this. Readers may look at https://t.co/JwteHrMK4s and your responses since then and draw their own conclusions. You may draw your own as well, Randal. I've said what needs saying.
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 25, 2023
@RandalRauser Finally: From this point on you can expect me to respond to you as seriously as you respond to me. You chose "not … to interact with [my] article" much. I will interact with you if you give substantive reason to. Otherwise, I've said all I feel a need to say. https://t.co/O91RrMhJHK
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 25, 2023
@RandalRauser I did not call you dishonest, as you claim. I did say, if you care about honesty you need to withdraw those statements now shown with objective evidence to be false. So I need not judge your honesty. What you do now will itself reveal how much you care about it. https://t.co/O91RrMhJHK
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 25, 2023
Number seven:
.@TomGilsonAuthor claims to offer a rebuttal to my critique of Sean McDowell; yet he has repeatedly refused to address McDowell's central claim that progressive Christianity is another religion. So I made a video explaining how to respond to deflection:https://t.co/ZUMpkwqKo7
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 25, 2023
You refused to address my central claim that your video about Sean McDowell is filled with errors in evidence and logic, some of them really quite egregious. And then you accused me of deflecting?
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 25, 2023
You show no interest in responding to what I wrote. Rude. You keep trying to control me to attend to something more comfortable to you. Doubly rude. You call it "sad" that I will not submit to said control.
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 25, 2023
That's triply rude. You accuse me of deflecting when you have deflected from what I wrote about you. 4x rude. Why would *anyone* continue in a discourteous pseudo-conversation like that?
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 25, 2023
You're "ready to bow out" without ever addressing (let alone defending) McDowell's central claim that progressive Christianity is another religion. Sad, but not surprising.
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 25, 2023
You love talking about "evidence" and "logic" but are silent on the evidence for and logic of McDowell's central claim: straining gnats and swallowing camels.
— The Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 25, 2023
Draw whatever conclusions you like. Goodbye.
— Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) February 25, 2023
The sum of it: He effectively ignored me and my questions, except for trying to beat me up for not answering his. It didn’t work. I don’t feel beat up.
Closing thoughts on integrity in discourse
I told Rauser I was bowing out, but there remains one more thing I must say. I suspect it will be on some readers’ minds, and I want to get there ahead of you. It’s about Rauser’s complete refusal to look seriously in the mirror of another writer’s assessment, and to consider whether he might be making some mistakes.
I have to say I am astonished. It’s not that it’s necessarily true that my analysis is correct. I think it is, or I wouldn’t have written it, but I’d be just as astonished if he responded that way to a false analysis, on the order of the careful examination I conducted.
I have been blogging here and writing in many other venues since 2004. Every time — and I mean every time anyone has called me out for an error, I have responded. It’s a matter of integrity. More than once I’ve responded by acknowledging and correcting mistakes I’ve made.
It’s even more important I do that when the charge is that I’ve misrepresented someone. In that case I must examine it, because if it’s an actual misrepresentation and I let it stand, then I’m effectively lying about that person. Even if I examine it and find that I haven’t made that mistake, I’ll at least acknowledge it was worth looking into! I’ll do the same here, of course.
Rauser misrepresented Sean McDowell. That’s what I see, as I blogged earlier, and I gave explicit, evidence-based reasons for drawing that conclusion. I do not believe there is any way he could examine what he said about Sean McDowell, or the images he posted, and come away thinking he represented Sean accurately. He doesn’t have to agree with me on that, but it’s incredible to think he doesn’t even consider it important enough to look into. He says it’s “nothing substantive,” not worth spending time on
I cannot imagine not caring about that, again, as a matter of integrity.
I did not call him dishonest in the course of this Twitter exchange. I do not know his motivations, and I think it’s unlikely he would be intentionally dishonest. I can see two other live options: He can’t do the analysis because he lacks competency to assess evidence and logic, which I also think is extremely unlikely, or he’s so intent on pursuing someone else’s errors he’s blind to his own. I don’t know how likely that is in his case.
I don’t know if there’s a fourth option. I don’t need to know. It’s not my life, not my issue, and I don’t expect to interact with him much more, so I have no need to draw any conclusions. If I were Rauser, though? I’d want to be sure I wasn’t making any such mistake.
Fallacy is a universal device, employed by philosophers and public intellectuals who don’t wish to be in a discussion on any other than their terms. An occupational hazard. Comments are treated as fair game for criticism. We all get annoyed by these tactics.